In another stupefying example of right wing homo-hysteria, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed the anti-gay marriage amendment yesterday by a vote of 136-61. 

I'll comment later when I've had more coffee and swallowed my disgust.  Here's how they voted. (PG)  I'll keep you posted on the response from PA LGBT pols. 

	HOW THEY VOTEDThe state House last night approved a bill that would outlaw same-sex marriages in Pennsyvlania. Here's how Pittsburgh-area legislators voted: Republicans -- Yes Brian Ellis of Butler; John Maher of Upper St. Clair; Daryl Metcalfe of Cranberry; Mark Mustio of Moon; Jeff Pyle of Ford City; Jess Stairs of Mount Pleasant; Dick Stevenson of Grove City; Tom Stevenson of Mt. Lebanon; Mike Turzai of Bradford Woods. Republicans -- No Mike Diven of Brookline Democrats -- Yes H. William DeWeese of Waynesburg; Vince Biancucci of Aliquippa; James Casorio of Irwin; Peter Daley of California; Anthony DeLuca of Penn Hills; R. Ted Harhai of Monessen; Nick Kotik of Robinson; Victor Lescovitz of Midway; David Levdansky of Forward; Joseph Markosek of Monroeville; John Pallone of New Kensington; Joseph Petrarca of Vandergrift; Thomas Petrone of Crafton Heights; Sean Ramaley of Conway; Harry Readshaw of Carrick; Larry Roberts of Hopwood; Ken Ruffing of West Mifflin; James Shaner of Lemont Furnace; Thomas Tangretti of Greensburg. Democrats -- No Paul Costa of Wilkins; Frank Dermody of Oakmont; Dan Frankel of Squirrel Hill; Marc J. Gergely of White Oak; Frank Pistella of Bloomfield; Joseph Preston of East Liberty; Tim Solobay of Canonsburg; Mike Veon of Beaver Falls; Don Walko of North Side; Jake Wheatley of the Hill District. Frank LaGrotta, D-Ellwood City, was absent.

 

Yesterday, a group of religious leaders formed a coalition to speak out in defense of Pennsylvania families.  Not just heterosexual families. (PG)

The new group, called the Faith Coalition For Pennsylvania Families, includes pastors and officials from two Presbyterian churches (one in Pittsburgh and one in Harrisburg), the Religious Society of Friends (aka Quakers), some Baptist and United Church of Christ churches, an "independent Catholic" bishop from suburban Philadelphia, plus a nondenominational Christian church from Philadelphia and a Jewish Reformed temple in Lancaster.

Among the participants was Pittsburgh's own Reverend Janet Edwards from the Community of Reconciliation.  Janet presided at a lesbian wedding ceremony last June.

The coalition will work to defeat the proposed amendment to the Pennsylvania constitution that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. 

"I am flabbergasted at the thought that the state Constitution might be amended to make same-sex couples outcasts in the eyes of the state," said the Rev. James D. Brown of Market Square Presbyterian Church here. "I cannot believe this is what God intends."

Of course, the wingnuts at the American Family Association of Pennsylvania didn't miss a beat, issuing their own press release to condemn this coalition, including a list of details on the homosexual affiliations of the participating faith communities (duh!)

?Protecting traditional marriage and defining it as only between one man and one woman is not contrary to the beliefs of members of every major religion in the world.  The Bible is quite clear that marriage is between the opposite sexes and homosexual relationships are considered sinful,? stated Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.

The AFA and some of their zombies will be gathering today in the Capitol to hold their own press conference denouncing gay marriage and state funding for family planning services. 

Governor Rendell addressed the National Stonewall Democrats Convention on Sunday, urging the gay community to work on turning out voters to secure victory in what's believed to be will be a close election. (PG)

"You don't think there are people who are fanatical out there about saving Rick Santorum? I guarantee you there are," Mr. Rendell said.

Rendell referenced his own history of strong support for gay issues as proof positive that the vast majority of people are not one-issue voters.  Rendell also called for gays to exhibit tolerance.

"We're fighting for dignity and fairness and understanding, and as we fight, we have to demonstrate that same dignity and fairness and understanding," the governor told about 75 attendees at the National Stonewall Democrats convention.

He commended the LGBT community for building its influence, registering voters and supporting gay-friendly candidates.

Rendell is right on most of these issues.  But casual conversation with movers and shakers in the local party (conversations I've had) reveal a widespread awareness of the divide within the LGBT community. None of the political leaders are going to talk about it out loud or on the record, but I think its the real reason we haven't built enough momentum to squash the marriage amendment.  Its not the apathetic voters, its the continuous petty infighting driven by personal agendas rather than the common good.  (And those personal agendas will be the ones leaving more quasi-anonymous comments on this blog --- behavior that perfectly illustrates my point.)

So how do we as a community break out of this personality driven loop?  Where are the solutions? 

I look around at the various political themed LGBT organizations and feel like none are quite a good fit.  Steel City Stonewall Democrats worked the best for me and I still regret that it didn't work out as I hoped.  I've gone to high-end fundraisers, queer activist events, mainstream democrat events, feminist events, etc.  And within each context, I feel divided almost as if I have to leave some pretty core parts of my identity at the door. 

And I suspect I'm not the only one who feels like I'm not young/hip/old/rich/radical/mainstream enough. 

Back to Rendell, I'm glad he came to the convention.  In spite of what anonymous commenters imply, I did hope for the convention to be a success.  Rumor is that he will be at the PrideFest awareness march on June 17.  That's also good news. 

Maybe we can find a way to get it together for this election? 

h/t to Pam's House Blend and Blog Asheville for this wonderful photo montage.  Click on the photo for the larger image. 

DNC Chairman Howard Dean was in town this weekend to address the annual convention of the National Stonewall Democrats aka "gay Democrats."  Dean told the assembled faithful that Stonewall has made the party "stronger, more inclusive, more courageous, more tenacious." (PG)

Mr. Dean said DNC operatives had been instructed to work with the gay community and trained to discuss gay-rights issues with straight voters.

He told the Stonewall group, 'We need you to reach out to the straight community.'

Reach out to the straight community? What the hell does he think we do everyday - live in a queers only bubble? 

While reporter Joe Smydo was quick to get some comments from the Sanctimonious camp, he failed to even touch on some of the recent gay controversy swirling around Dean's leadership.  (Washington Blade)

First, Dean eliminated the LGBT outreach desk late last year as part of a strategic realignment, assuring the community that the DNC would continue to reach out to gays.

Then in February, the DNC published its annual grassroot activity report without a single reference to LGBT grassroots activities. 

Third, in early May, Dean fired gay outreach advisor Donald Hitchcock just weeks after Hitchcock's partner publicly criticized the DNC for failing to protect gay rights.

For his coup d'etat, Dean went on The 700 Club.  Yes, Dean made time in his schedule to reach out to the Pat Robertson crowd.  Later, Dean had to issue an apology for informing Robertson's viewers that the Democrat party platform stated marriage was between a man and a woman.  Gay groups responded in outrage.  Dean does intend to return to The 700 Club for future appearances.  Click here for Shakespeare Sister's recap of Pat Robertson's more outrageous (?divisive?) comments.

Did anyone from the media even ASK Dean about these issues?  Did anyone from Stonewall?   I couldn't because Stonewall didn't want bloggers covering their convention.  We aren't a "valid media."   I guess no one bothered to tell Dean that during the 2004 campaign, but whatever.  Or perhaps bloggers might ask actual questions that put Stonewall on the spot.  Wouldn't want that. 

It appears that the PG editors prefer to spin Dean's appearance as an anti-Santorum story than to do any concrete reporting on current gay politics.  To be fair, they have probably sent an intern into the bowels of the Boulevard to drag out and dust off the tired old gay cliches for the June 17 PrideFest article.  Last year's trivial little article by Caitlin Cleary is a good example of how little concern the PG has for accurate reporting on gay issues.  But I digress ...

h/t to 2 Political Junkies for a transcript of the entire Dean speech.

In an appearance on yet another right wingnut talk program, Ricky Sanctimonious played his oh-so-tired homo card.  Again.

This time he was on Janet Parshall's America (I wish I had my own America), a nationally syndicated talk radio program. I picked this up from the Raw Story. 

Read what Ricky has to say this time ...

It is. If you think about it, Janet, from everything from Brokeback Mountain to, you know, all the TV shows that you see promoting and affirming alternative lifestyles -- I guess to put it nicely -- you would think that the culture would eventually just move in the other direction. But I think these kind of debates are the chance for a public discourse to counter what Hollywood is purveying to our young people. Not just what Hollywood is purveying to young people, to all people. And it's an opportunity for us to get beyond, you know, 'We should treat everybody nicely.' I'm for treating everybody nicely, but that doesn't mean that we need to change the law to recognize a form of marriage that is harmful to our country.

Hey, hey --- I wonder if Santorum spokesfag Robert Traynham gets treated nicely when he's asked to spin yet another stupid lie to cover Ricky's ass?  You could say he's the right man for that job, but that would be an overly obvious joke. 

And, of course, there are still no details on how gay marriage will hurt the country.  Perhaps Ricky left that document in Penn Hills when he moved?  

I missed this, but on Thursday the Trib published a column by Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute (limited government, free markets, etc). 

Powell explains how federal regulation of marriage proved to be a bad conservative idea back in the days of Theodore Roosevelt. 

Polygamous families were producing more children than monogamous families and TR feared that polygamy would sweep the nation. He recommended a constitutional amendment banning polygamy. He came close to suggesting that there ought to be a law making it mandatory for monogamous families to have children.

Aside from the characters on HBO, do you know any polygamous families?  

Powell continues:

One big problem with the idea of federalizing everything is the assumption that the "right" people will always be in control.

<snip>

Mindful of historical reality, one has to consider the possibility that if the marriage amendment is ratified, it will strengthen precedents for the federal government to find new ways of interfering in people's personal lives. At least some of the interference will likely be abhorrent to the religious right.

All very excellent points.  But Powell fails to carry his argument to its logical conclusion -- its not so much federal control of marriage that's abhorrent as government control period.  Why should the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania exert that latitude of control over marital and, by default, nonmarital relationships? 

We've already seen examples of the damage that the amendments can do vis a vis blasting domestic violence convictions out of the water for unmarried couples.  People of faith should rethink this because its not just the great unwashed sinners who run into this wall of control.  If your engaged virginic daughter is beaten by her fiancee, she may have no legal recourse.  If he waits until they are married to beat her, she's all set.  That makes no fucking sense.

Powell wraps up with a call to the conservative faithful to live up to their own ideals rather than imposing them on others:

If they really want to promote traditional marriage, conservative people of faith should do two things:

First, they could marry someone of the opposite sex and set an example of how beautiful such unions can be.

Second, rather than working to close off the rights of gays, they should use their political efforts to abolish the obnoxious marriage tax penalty. Then all people of every sect and philosophy would owe them a debt of gratitude.

I'd go a bit further.  If the conservatives want to preserve the institution of marriage and protect families, they should put down their fetus signs and sign up as a foster family.  It is the best way to help put a family back together.

Soulforce is hoping to put up 16 of these billboards in June in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment.  You can help. 

The anti-gay forces are making another attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage in such a way as to exclude the families of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee is their agent for putting the Federal Marriage Amendment before the Senate.

During this summer's fight to defeat the FMA, these billboards will serve as a powerful reminder that Coretta Scott King called for legal protections for same-gender families. And we are placing them in Senator Frist's hometown.

It would be nice to see some in Pennsylvania.  Senator Santorum's former hometown.

While he deftly minces closer to his own heterosexual-style wedding to the lovely and talented Roberta, our good friend and lesbian-lover John McIntire gave gay marriage a big old shout out in his local blog, MacYapper.com. 

In spite of his fondness for large-fonted bold-faced type (I always wondered what his type was), McIntire adroitly dissects the bigot-fawning behavior of Arlen Specter, Dubya and pretty much the entire Republican party (plus Democrat Ben Nelson).

Not to mention members of the general public who like to pussy-foot around their homophobic principles (type faced reduced for non-yelling like reading):

*To those who ask, "why, just because I'm against gay marriage, does thatmake me a bigot or a homophobe?" I extend my sympathies.
You're not necessarily either of those.*You could just be an imbecile.

Marriage may be safe in Ohio, but unmarried women aren't.  This past week, an appellate court overturned the conviction of an Ohio man convicted of domestic violence (a fourth degree felony) because he was not married to his victim.  The court found that the domestic violence sentence violates the constitutional amendment designed to protect marriage from activist judges and homos.

The prosecutors can opt to file a lesser charge and may appeal to the state Supreme Court. 

Hopefully, all the homo-haters appreciate the sacrifice their heterosexual, unmarried compatriates must make for their peace of mind. 

h/t Feministing